Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SOUTH CANON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1200504 · 1 · ARKANSAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:35 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — every figure regenerates from this named code version and data image.
Where it sits
Location as DWR records it. Faint dots are the neighbouring water; click any to open it.
Which of its rights are out of priority?
Not computable for this structure: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1862-05-01 — 25th most senior of the 1967 structures with decreed rights in this water districtDWR's administrative subdivision of a river basin; the unit calls are usually stated in..
Under prior appropriationColorado's rule for sharing water: first in time, first in right. Age decides, not proximity or need., everything ahead of it in this line is satisfied in full before it receives any water. Immediately ahead: FLORENCE DIVERSION WORKS (1861-11-30). Immediately behind: FREMONT COUNTY DITCH (1862-05-01).
Decreed rights (7)
| Admin noDWR's numeric encoding of a water right's seniority. Smaller is more senior; the integer part counts days from 1849-12-31 to the date that ranks the right. | AppropriatedWhen water was first put to beneficial use. It sets seniority unless a prior adjudication date is later. | AdjudicatedWhen the water court confirmed the right. A use decreed in 1975 was not a decreed use in 1955, however old the appropriation is. | AbsoluteA right actually put to use, as opposed to conditional -- a placeholder for a use not yet made. | ConditionalA right reserving a place in line for a use not yet made; it must be diligently pursued or it lapses. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4504.0 | 1862-05-01 | 1894-02-03 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 11 |
| 5903.0 | 1866-02-28 | 1894-02-03 | 12.912 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 30, NI7 |
| 5995.0 | 1866-05-31 | 1894-02-03 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 33 |
| 11232.0 | 1880-10-01 | 1894-02-03 | 3.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 240 |
| 11751.0 | 1882-03-04 | 1916-02-14 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | PWR | NI20 |
| 11839.0 | 1882-05-31 | 1894-02-03 | 23.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 273 |
| 20781.19966 | 1904-08-31 | 1906-12-08 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
CA2637, CA2859, CA2972, CA2566, 05/13/1905, 02/03/1894.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2637 | 3 | 1916-02-14 | O |
CA2859 | 1 | 1906-12-08 | S |
CA2972 | 1 | 1894-02-03 | O |
CA2566 | 1 | 1894-02-03 | O |
05/13/1905 | 1 | 1894-02-03 | O |
02/03/1894 | 3 | 1894-02-03 | O |
DWR's own records for this structure: net amounts · transactions & adjudication history · scanned decrees (search a case number there for the imaged document). On this site: the district's full legal picture →
Recorded use (last 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 15,072 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 16,409 AF — 109% of that, and 11th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
| Year | Diverted (AFA volume: one acre covered a foot deep, about 326,000 gallons -- roughly a suburban household's outdoor use for a year.) | Compared with its own record | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 19,942 | 13th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 220 | 67.5 |
| 2012 | 15,135 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 254 | 68.8 |
| 2013 | 17,179 | 12th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 208 | 62.2 |
| 2014 | 10,565 | 1st lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 204 | 51.8 |
| 2015 | 13,508 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 234 | 42.3 |
| 2016 | 14,698 | 5th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 245 | 45.8 |
| 2017 | 22,801 | 15th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 306 | 204.8 |
| 2018 | 13,696 | 4th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 365 | 46.7 |
| 2019 | 13,419 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 330 | 46.6 |
| 2020 | 14,780 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 305 | 47.3 |
| 2021 | 22,335 | 14th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 365 | 3397.0 |
| 2022 | 15,918 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 365 | 363.0 |
| 2023 | 14,771 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 365 | 45.9 |
| 2024 | 15,072 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 366 | 48.4 |
| 2025 | 16,409 | 11th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 304 | 42.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade A (9/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.
The rubric, component by component
| Check | State | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| identity | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 29164 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1911-2025 carry measured days |
| published-record stability | stable | no upstream revisions recorded against this structure |
Advisory reading aid on public data — not an administrative or legal conclusion, not a title opinion, and not a substitute for DWR administration or an engineer's analysis. Methodology review status is disclosed at hydrohistorian's basin pages.